John Howard's Water Plan

Prime Minister John Howard has pre-empted the Labor Party with a proposal for a national water plan. Some reports suggest it took 4 months to plan.

The plan can be found at: http://www.pm.gov.au/docs/national_plan_water_security.pdf
It consists of 10 points, and is conditional on the States handing over all responsibility for the Murray-Darling Basin to the Federal Government.

The 1o-point plan was announced in typical Howard style: big heading, followed by big dollar signs. The fine print is barely reported.

The fine print includes:

1. the $10 billion is spent over 10 years - it doesn't sound nearly so much then.
2. Part of the plan is based on the detrimental effects of reforestation in the Murray-Darling Basin. It ignores the fact that at least some of this is designed to overcome the serious effects of dry-land salinity, especially in southern NSW and northern Victoria.
3. Control of the Goulburn (Vic) and Murrumbidgee (NSW) Rivers is included in the fine print
   
4. part of the $10 billion will be spent on a a new Federal bureaucracy - the Murray-Darling Basic Commission (MDBC)
5. the above new MDBC will be under Ministerial control - ie subject to party political influence. This ought to be a major stumbling block for the Queensland, NSW, Victoria, SA and the ACT.

While the Labor Party has been caught short with the unexpected release of such a policy, the policy does nothing to lessen the effects of global warming or Australia's disproportionately high rate of greenhouse gas production. It does give the promise (hope?) of money for irrigators/farmers. These people are traditionally strong supporters of the National Party, and John Howard's Liberal/National coalition government, and they will appreciate the financial sweetener.

John Howard is creating a history of gaining, and centralizing, political power within his ministries. Here he is asking the states to cede their constitutional rights and hand over power to a body that will be under Ministerial control. *WARNING! Warning! There is danger here"

The concept of a national authority to "govern" the Murray-Darling Basin rivers is a good one. Such an authority needs to be independent of government and free from party political interference, real or perceived. The proposed Murray-Darling Basin Commission ought to be free of politics and Ministers: it ought to have the same independence as the Reserve Bank.

The Analyst

Australia Day Speeches and Politics

News that NSW Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, had to be forced to tone down an Australia Day speech because it was too political is nothing less than shameful.

Australia Day is a day when we celebrate community, being Australian, being a multicultural society, and welcoming new citizens.

That Mr Debnam wanted to use a formal speech welcoming new Australian citizens to talk Party policies can only reflect badly on him and his party. It should have been a speech to welcome new citizens, not a speech to belittle multiculturalism and incite right-wing intolerance.

The Analyst

Federal Cabinet Reshuffle 2007

John Howard's cabinet reshuffle sees a new PR image occurring: Workplace Relations (WorkChoices) is to have the smiling, amiable Joe Hockey. Amanda Vanstone has been dumped from Immigration, and the Ministry.

In both these cases John Howard needed a fresh face, preferably one that won't be associated with conflict and bad news. Kevin Andrews, as Minister for Workplace Relations, oversaw the introduction of WorkChoices and the demolition of the Federal Industrial Relations Court. He was always a tough-talking, ride roughshod type of Minister. Amanda Vanstone has had to front the media on many occasions, almost all of them associated with bad news: bad news about detention centres involving "The Pacific Solution", mistreatment or maltreatment of detainees, or their incarceration conditions. Voters have begun to associate both with bad things.

Malcolm Turnbull's accelerated approach into Cabinet (a position as a Parliamentary Secretary was only created last year) will see him opposing Labor's Peter Garrett. A smooth-talking Merchant Banker / lawyer versus a former rock star with considerable environmental and street cred. It will be an interesting battle.

The crux of Mr Howard's reshuffle seems to be to put softer-looking people in the Cabinet hot-spots of Immigration and Workplace Relations; and a high-profile NSW banker in charge of the Environment and Water.

The Analyst

The Australian Flag at The Big Day Out

Organisers of this week's Big Day Out concert have previously issued a statement that they did not want anyone to bring the Australain flag to the concert. Their reasoning was well-meaning: they wanted to avoid the possibility of trouble stemming from a few people who might use the flag as a visible rallying point and who want to cause trouble.

Such use aof the flag, and trouble, had occurred last year at the Cronulla riots. There were also people from far right-wing Nationalist groups trying to recruit some of the people involved.

The problem is not with the Australian flag. The problems lie with the people and concepts that the flag represents a white Australia, and that it should be used as a rallying point in the same way, and for similar purposes, as the Nazi flag. These concepts and the people who preach them are inappropriate, and not what our flag represents. It represents a "commonwealth" of states, where people work for the betterment of the country and all its people.

The organisers of The Big Day Out concert have retreated somewhat from their earlier statements, and are discouraging, rather than banning, people bringing the flag. Friday is Australia Day - a day when all Australians should join together and celebrate; recognising that Indiginous Australians predated white settlement, but that all Australians work and live together in a multicultural society. Let's party! Be Happy.

The Analyst

Petrol Prices, Economics and Politics

ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuels has made a rare public statement, this time about the slow, or non-existent, fall in the price of petrol. The price of petrol in Australia is set by the oil companies. They follow, more or less, the price of crude sold on the Singapore market. Recently, it seems have been "more" ... for the oil companies.

The ACCC quite powerless, but can try to “name & shame” oil companies that it believes are not dropping prices. Interestingly, some service stations in Sydney dropped their prices this afternoon ... AFTER MR Samuels' statement was released.

The price of petrol has historically been quite inelastic – it is controlled by only a few companies ( an oligopoly) & demand is reasonably constant. This conforms roughly to Keynesian economic theory for goods run by an oligopoly. However, after petrol hit $1 / litre a few years ago, it is more likely to suffer falling demand if price rises quickly /stays too high, as people react and complain.

Deputy PM Mark Vaille has said the Federal Government would look at more powers for ACCC if needed. Here it is caught in political push-pull. Oil companies are significant donors to political parties, but the Government could suffer voter backlash about the continuing high price of petrol, as as happened previously. Then, the Federal Government fixed the amount of fuel excise, in order to reduce the CPI increases in excise, and therefore price. It wants to avoid a voter backlash because there is an election this year.

The Government would like to think fuel price in Australia would be set by “free market forces” (demand/supply). Here, it reverts to Keynesian economics, rather than the “economic rationalism” theory it uses elsewhere. The reality is it needs to have a mixed economy where there is some government regulation in order to prevent excessive price blowouts. This might well include giving the ACCC greater powers to fine, or otherwise penalise, oil companies, and their executives. When it's personal, executives are more likely to be responsible and conform to regulation.

The Analyst

Childcare, Taxes and Corporations

Let me express at the outset that I have no personal interest in childcare at the moment. My children are too old and I have no grandchildren. However, a friend has asked me to express an opinion, and I am not shy of doing that.

Some facts:

• Childcare in Australia has become big business. ABC Learning and Childcare Centres Australia are both large corporations, making multi-million dollar profits. Several Federal conservative politicians or leading members of conservative parties have significant shareholdings in one or more of these corporations. This is not to say that they have done anything corrupt or illegal, but the Federal Government does provide the subsidy that these corporations collect, directly or indirectly.
  
• In 1991, John Howard's (Federal) government, opened up childcare to private providers.
• In the years since 1991, the cost of childcare has risen greatly, to the point where Federal Government "subsidies" account for 60% of the fees charged.
• Ann Mann, author of "Motherhood", researched levels of cortisol in children. Cortisol is a stress hormone (like adrenaline). She found children cared at home had high levels in the morning, which then became lower as the day progressed. Children in childcare had high levels, even in the afternoon.
• There are mostly 2 "types" of childcare centres: community-based, and corporate.
• Corporate childcare centres, by their very nature, must concentrate most on the shareholders profits. Part of this is to place quite restrictive budgets in its centres.
  
• ABC Learning Centres, like others, receives 60% of its funding from Federal Government subsidies. This represents about 40% of its $250-$350 million income in 2005. It used a large amount of money to sponsor a national basketball team, and to buy paraphernalia from some of its players and coach. If it had no subsidies from taxpayers, it could still make $150-$200 million!
• Meanwhile (meanly?!), childcare workers remain one on the lowest paid groups of adults in Australia.
  

The childcare benefit (CCB) paid by the Federal Government is supposed to make childcare affordable. It can be paid to parents at the end of the (financial) year, or as a co-payment to the provider. With the rise of corporate involvement in childcare, and the increase in fees, I'm not sure it's making childcare affordable - rather, it seems to be making corporate shareholders richer.

I believe the time has come when we must consider a system of public childcare, similar to public education. This would have the following benefits:

• Proper government control of standards
• Establishment of national standards
• Improved pay for childcare workers
• Consistency of care and programs, while still allowing tailoring to suit the cultural and social needs of local communities.
• Using public money for public good, using public resources.

If they want a change in how childcare is delivered, parents and other voters must make enough noise in the media.


The Analyst

Holiday Road Toll and P-Plate Drivers

Operation Safe Arrival ran from 22-Dec-06 till midnight on 5-January-07. In that time there were 19 people killed on NSW roads, more than 16000 were booked for speeding; more than 1000 were booked for driving with proscribed amounts of alcohol; and more than 1000 were booked for seat belt offences!

Of the 19 killed in NSW 4 were P-plate drivers; 1 was a 4-month old passenger of a P-plate driver and the other 14 had full licences.

Much has been discussed in the media about bans and further restrictions on P-Plate drivers, and they are certainly disproportionately represented in the holiday road toll. But what about the rest: 15 people died at the hands of people with full licences. I had an experience where a car about 200m in front, on a good dual-carriageway, dual-lane highway, lost control on the outside of a gentle curve, fishtailed, then spun through about 540 degrees. The tyres were useless after. The driver? - an man, about 40 years old, driving a performance version of a family car, who was speeding (about 120+ km/hr) There were 5 or 6 cars alongside and immediately behind him.

With 16000 drivers (repeat sixteen THOUSAND drivers) fined for speeding in NSW over 15 days, the impact of "double-demerit points" and the advertizing for drivers to slow down is having minimal impact.

Solution: - those drivers fined for speeding, alcohol and seat-belt offences during times of "double demerit", should automatically have their licence suspended for 1 month, on-the-spot! A hole punched in their licence indicates a cancellation. Their licence can be re-issued after paying the appropriate fine and taking the receipt to an RTA office. Drastic? Yes, but at least those people putting the rest of us at risk will be off the road for the holiday period.

The Analyst

Ban Surgery for Smokers - Surgeon

Today's news carries a story where a surgeon says that denying smokers orthopedic joint replacements, reconstructive surgery and other elective operations was justified in a health system with limited resources because it was more risky and expensive to operate on them.

There are many views on ethical dilemmas: making the most efficient use of resources for the common good creates many such dilemmas. Respiratory surgeon Matthew Peters' suggestion is, I believe, wrong, but it needs more than a cry of "you can't do that".

Dr Peters' position uses the base arguments of: operations on smokers are more risky; smokers take longer (that whom?) to recover from surgery; the benefits to smokers might not be as great as for others.

There are many groups of people for whom surgery is a higher risk than normal: people who use too much alcohol; drug users; those who have suffered significant trauma because of their own stupidity; people who play sports, and want to return to doing the same things; older people; and very young people. Denying surgery to one group of people who have a higher risk, but not targeting other groups is not a reasonable basis on which to operate (so to speak).

Some groups of people do take longer to heal, and need more time and resources from hospitals: very young infants, and older people are two such groups. Do you deny them surgery.

We do not deny people because of the cost. We do not say to any group "Sorry, this operation costs a lot, so you can't have it." Not to any group.

On what basis do doctors decide on surgery? Need, and benefits. Before any surgery, doctors will examine the risks and the benefits. They will discuss them with the patient, if that is possible. If the possible risks outweigh the possible benefits, it is likely that the surgery would not proceed.

For long-term smokers, the risks for some surgery might outweigh the benefits - but that needs to be judged on each individual case, not on a "class" of people. The same applies to all other cases.

The Analyst

Water Policies 2007

Today's news papers carry more stories about the lack of water in Australia. We have certainly felt the lack of rain resulting from the effects of El Nino.

In the last quarter of 2006, the Federal Government increased the status of water issues, creating a Parliamentary Secretary. Prime Minister John Howard has publicly said that he wants control over all the Murray-Darling Basin - system that covers parts of Queensland, NSw, Victoria and SA. However, water is a State responsibility. Whether it should be handed over to the Federal Government is another matter, and, constitutionally, should be subject to a referendum.

The responses of the States to the prolonged drought and falling water supplies varies. However, NSW is the only state where the Government will not accept the concept of recycled water. Since the concept was raised in 2004-05, various NSW Ministers have stated that the people of Sydney "will not accept recycled water". To my knowledge there has been no comprehensive, reliable survey of Sydney residential users.

As Sydney's storage capacity falls to 36%, the NSW Government says that increased water restrictions in Sydney will cause "panic" and are unnecessary. Were it not for supplementary water supplies from other parts of the State, Sydney's water would be at about 25% of capacity, and Sydney would have the same water restrictions as other towns desperate for water. Goulburn (NSW) and Toowoomba (Qld) are two such towns that have been in the news.

Both the NSW Labor Government, and the Liberal/National Opposition have said that they will not increase water restrictions. The ONLY reason for saying this is self-interest - there is a State election in March and they do not want to upset the voters.

Yet it would seem that that increased water restrictions would be a cheaper option to building and powering a brand new desalination plant to supplement water supplies for a short time. There appears to be no cohesive short, medium or long-term plans to properly manage water supplies for Sydney, or to act in the best interests of Sydney residents.

In the last 20 years, the population of Sydney has doubled; its water storage capacity has not changed. Our governments will not invest in infrastructure; they want to protect their budget surplus, keep demanding a "dividend" from Sydney Water (so it has little money) and keep their votes.

We need politicians who will do something for the community; rather than do something for themselves and their parties. It seems voters have to create a political backlash to force their hand! What a shameful indictment of our governments.

The Analyst

Saddam Hussein is Dead

Saddam has been executed in Iraq, after being found guilty of the murder of more than 100 Shi'ites. This was not his only crime against humanity; but it is the one for which he was executed, in Iraq. Perhaps the millions, who suffered the loss of family and friends because of Saddam's relentless violent suppression of dissent, have also given their own "death sentence" to Saddam. Small comfort.

People must fill the details of his other crimes. We must not allow the human tragedies and degradation to be glossed over, now that he is dead. If humanity is to learn, it must record all that was wrong, and document ways to prevent it.

History will summarize Saddam Hussein's rule in just two words:
"dictator, butcher".

The Analyst

December Celebrations

As many people prepare to celebrate Christmas, it is worthwhile to reflect on a few questions:

1. What religious festivals are celebrated around this time? Some of them are:
   
   Jews celebrate Hanukkah - the festival of lights - recently publicly celebrated in Sydney
   Buddhists celebrate Bodhi Day - the day Buddha achieved enlightenment
   Muslims celebrate Id al-Adha - the feast of Sacrifice - celebrating the day Abraham decided to follow God's instructions
   Christians celebrate Christmas - the Feast of Christ's birth
   
   
2. What does Christmas mean in a secular society?
   
   For Christians, it derives from "the Mass of Christ": the religious celebration of Christ's birth, and all that follows from it. Churches swell with people: it is both a religious and social event.
   
   A cynic once suggested that the only bells at Christmas time are those of the cash-register. He was making the point that Christmas is a retail event, and that while people profess and wish for peace on earth, they don't practise it during the year. Cynical, because few go out of their way to be violent the rest of t he year!
   
   Christmas in Australia is both a religious and cultural/social event: a time when those who profess Christianity take part in the religious celebrations, and the people make time for family and friends to wish them well. To many, "Merry Christmas" is a secular greeting of goodwill. No-one should be offended by it: indeed, people should be pleased that someone else wishes them well.

May all people celebrate this "festive season" in peace and with good will.

Merry Christmas to all
-----------------------------


The Analyst

Justice? - You're Joking

Several headlines in the last two days have made me think about our legal system and its relationship to justice. Some would argue there is no relationship between the legal system and justice. A cynical view, perhaps, but consider the following cases, reported in the media on 18/19 Dec 2006.

1. "Black mark for white man's justice"
   (SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/black-mark-for-white-mans-justice
   /2006/12/17/1166290412432.html)
   Here was an aboriginal woman's story of domestic violence and sexual assault. It dealt with social attitudes of women and men, aboriginal and otherwise, to reporting domestic violence and rape. It covered perceptions of how Police handled the compalints: a Police Domestic Violence Officer showed the patience and understanding needed for this woman to bring her complaint of rape against her partner.
   
   During the trial, the defence lawyer is reported to have repeatedly suggested that she made up her injuries, inflicted grievous bodily harm on herself and provoked the defendant into hitting her. At one stage the defendant is alleged to have hit her with an iron bar.
   
   
2. "Brethren member guilty of indecently assaulting girl, 10"
   (SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/brethren-member-guilty-of-sex-
   assault/2006/12/18/1166290475602.html )
   In this case the defence argued that the offenses were so bad, and because the accused is a member of a religious community, that the jury could not possibly believe a 10 year girl. After the guilty verdict, they also argued that there should be absolutely no reports of the case in the media. Why? To protect whom? (Hint: it wasn't to protect the child, the defence lawyers were not acting in her interests)
   
   

These two cases raise the points about our system. Ours is a system of "us versus them"; a system where it is reasonable, even encouraged, for the defence to belittle and character assassinate a victim. Ours is a system concerned not with justice, but with "what can we get away with". If they want, accused can avoid questioning in court; if questioned they can refuse to answer (it might incriminate them); they can provide last-minute alibis, (arranged between charge and court appearance?)

In both the above cases, the defendant was found guilty. The system "worked", but I'm sure those who study law could cite many cases where it didn't.

It is time we changed our system to provide a more appropriate, more just, outcome. To start with, we could look at the NSW Police Association's suggestion of reducing the effects of sudden, last-minute, in-court alibis that have not previously been provided. Those accused of criminal offences ought to answer questions in court. We should look at even better protections for victims of crime, especially those who have suffered violence and sexual assault; and we should look at compelling witnesses to answer more questions. Only then, can courts make more informed decisions: decisions that are more likely to result in justice.

The Analyst

Education Reform and Unions

The Federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop has again raised the spectre of Australain teacher unions blocking "uniform educational standards" in Australia. She has doen this in response to the Labor opposition statements that the Federal Government should be working cooperatively with the States towards a national curriculum.

Ms Bishop's arguments are of the "reds under the bed" type: the unseen all-powerful enemy wnating to undermine Australian values, as espoused by the current conservative government. It is true that teacher unions in Australia have significant industrial muscle. It is also true that they have resisted John Howard's attempts at determining what view of history he thinks should be taught. That, perhaps, is reasonable: other politicians/governments that have determined the history syllabus include Stalin; and Japan, which has long refused to acknowledge or teach about the atrocities of WWII. Political interference with educational curricula is fraught with danger.

Professor Gordon Stanly, from the NSW Board of Studies, was intervied on ABC Stateline in October, 2006. (http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2006/s1758310.htm) In the interview he gave reasons for the breadth of curriculum in NSW, particularly in the English Syllabus for Years 11 - 12; described the consultative nature of curriculum development; the breadth of representation on the Board of Studies; and the extent and nature of measurement of outcomes in NSW. It is this breadth of curriculum, its attendant examination of multiple views and desire for students to form their own properly-constructed views that seems to so annoy John Howard and his Education Minister.

Both Labor (opposition) and Liberal (government) Parties seem to support the concept of a a national curriculum and consistent term dates. At face value, they are reasonable proposals. It is the political outlook - the Federal Government's desire for political control of education - that should ring alarm bells for us voters.

The Analyst

Aussie Citizenship Test

Yesterday, Mr Howard announced changes to how people can gain Australian citizenship.

Migrants wanting to become Australian citizens, and accept the responsibilities of loyalty, voting and abiding by the rule of law, will now:

• have to wait at least 4 years, instead of 3
• take a "citizenship test" of 30 questions, from a bank of 200, and including understanding of English, history, system of government, sporting traditions and mateship.

I will not debate the merits of these, only the political motives behind them.

Mr Howard had two problems: Kevin Rudd's new leadership was still attracting much media attention, giving the Labor Party much needed "good press"; and the results of polls on voting intentions and preferred Prime Minister. He needed a distraction, and just 1year and 1 day after the Cronulla riots (and associated media coverage), he could give some elements who talk of "Aussie pride" a reason to support him ... this was John Howard's way of jumping up and down, saying "pick me, pick me!"

It's all about timing ... and image.

The Analyst

NSW $25m Compo for Tunnel Company

NSW Roads Minister announced a $25 million deal with owners of the Lane Cove Tunnel to delay road works . Contracted road closures associated with the (Sydney) Cross City Tunnel caused a voter backlash against the State Government.

However, it should be noted that the lane closures and other associated road works with the Lane Cove Tunnel haven't been scrapped - only delayed! They will happen - after the State election in March next year.

The State Government believes the $25 m is well spent: the Tunnel operators benefit; and the State Government benefits by avoiding voter backlash just before an election.

State Roads Minister Roozendal is reported in media to have said that the NSW Government has "learnt the lessons of the Cross City Tunnel". I wish the State Government would learn the other lessons from the Cross City Tunnel:

1. Private infrastructure should never interfere with the operation, maintenance & appropriate development of public infrastructure.
2. Public infrastructure should not be used to funnel people to privately-run, for profit, infrastructure.
   
3. No member of the government, ministerial staff or public servants associated with large "public-private" contracts should be able to accept employment with those contractors within 4 years of retirement from government or the Public Service. The potential for conflict of interest is too great. We have had two Premiers of NSW who retired, then took up such employment: one Liberal, and one Labor.

The $25m "compensation" to be paid to the operators of the Lane Cove Tunnel seems to be driven by political expediency and, if so, is a disgrace. ICAC has already declined to investigate, on the basis that the policy change of not starting public roadworks on the day a toll road opens does not constitute corruption, even if it benefits the government. A cynical electorate will make up its own mind.

The Analyst

Damien Martyn Draws Stumps

On Friday, Damien Martyn announced his retirement from cricket, via email to Cricket Australia.

Martyn would have been selected to play in the 3rd Ashes Test in Perth this coming Friday. He leaves with a test batting average of about 47, and cricket-lovers will remember him as an player of elegance, and sometimes effortless class. In that, and other respects, he might well be compared with Mark Waugh.

It was, I think, a smart move on his part to take a two-week holiday to wait till the attention subsides. The press has made something of estimates of how much money this could cost him in the next 12-months. That he made the decision based on how committed he felt to continuing, rather than "the money", is to his credit. I wish him well

The Analyst

Kevin Rudd Gets His Way

New Federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, will get his first wish, and pass the first test of his party leadership, when he gets his wish for the front bench.

In the past, factional interests have determined not only who is appointed to the front bench, but which portfolio they are given. Those who did not belong to a faction, such as Peter Garret, were isolated.

There will be 28 nominations for 28 vacancies at today's meeting. Undoubdedly, there has been much politiking behind the scenes, but at least we have not had the openly hostile factional public brawling that has sometimes marked these occasions.

We voters hope that Kevin Rudd can then allocate the best people to each of the 28 shadow portfolios. [28 ! - we thought government was supposed to be getting smaller, but it seems to be growing]

It is time that Labor ditched the factional intervention in it's leader's ability to choose the best person for each portfolio. I hope that today is the start of that process.

The Analyst

Kevin Rudd Wins ALP Leadership

Today's news is rather dominated by the news that Kevin Rudd has won leadership of the Federal ALP. (the party in Opposition).

He has promised Australian voters a new style of leadership. He said to reporters:

"Today the Australian Labor Party elected a new leadership team with a new leadership style for Australia's future, a new style of leadership"

Some recent polls, including those published in this morning's papers, suggest that Mr Rudd will increase Labor's primary vote, if an election were held today. But that is not enough; and neither is a change of leadership style.

Mr Rudd certainly presents better on visual media than Mr Beazley. He is eloquent, reasoned and measured in his voice. His "media style" seems to have similar traits to that of Mr Howard. This ought to mean that Mr Rudd will show an improvement on Mr Beazley in the "Preferred Prime Minister" polls. He will undoubtedly have a honeymoon period of 1-3 months. It is after that, that Mr Howard will be watching for the most opportune time to call an election.

However, style is insufficient to make the Australian public change its voting pattern. It will certainly help, but some more substance is required, especially nearer election time. The substance has to be positive: what will the ALP do; how will they guide Australia's economic and political interests, both nationally and globally.

He has already identified industrial relations, climate change, education and federation as areas of difference between the Liberal/National and Labor Parties. They are certainly areas where John Howard has sought to exercise and increase his political power. One news report suggested there could be a more interventionist industrial policy. Under John Howard's rule, the proportion of Australia's GDP from industry has fallen to about 10% - the lowest of OECD nations, including lower than NZ.

Mr Rudd has much work to do to convince Australian voters that he has more than "style".

The Analyst

AWB and Cole Enquiry Aftermath

Much has already been written and analysed in the days following the release of Commissioner Cole's Enquiry into AWB Kickbacks.

The media has been full of Government and Opposition press releases and staged TV & radio announcements.

Some salient points to consider:

• Commissioner Cole described AWB as having a culture of deceipt and concealment.
• There were no criminal findings against politicians, nor of anyone within DFAT. Indeed, there were no criminal findings against anyone! Mr Cole has, though, recommended a task force to investigate possible criminal behaviours by 12 people, 11 of them from AWB.
• The Government claims to be relieved there were no findings against any Ministers - but that was not within Mr Cole's terms of reference. He DID find that DFAT had no policy or procedures to deal with allegations of AWB breaching UN sanctions. That is, a department, for which a Minister is responsible and accountable, had serious failings of competency.

There might well be a slow, quiet cleaning-out in Mr Downer's department (DFAT) over the next 12 months.

There is much angst from some politicians over the future of AWB and the export monopoly ("single-desk") licence it holds. Some suggest that the single-desk should go, others want it to remain in AWB's hands, while a few wnat it transferred, possibly to government hands. Certainly the following will be considered:

• the political ramifications of upsetting the close relationship between parts of the National Party and AWB
• the shareholder ramifications, including for families of some politicians, of removing the single-desk from AWB, or its power of veto over other companies exporting wheat
• the global environment of wheat trading, where the US and many other countries provide prohibitive subsidies

I think the single-desk should stay, given the global commercial practices in wheat trading and other countries' farm subsidies. AWB has shown itself to be not "fit and proper" to trade internationally, and a change of personnel, per se, does not change an institutionalised culture such as that described by Commisioner Cole. Until such time as AWB's board is replaced, and a legal and ethical business culture established and fostered over some years, it should be in government hands.

The Analyst

Time for P-Plate Driver Rule Change?

26 Nov 2006

Since August 2006 ther have been more than 14 young people killed in car accidents involving P-Plate drivers. The accidental death of anyone is tragic. The effect of a death involving a young driver &/or passengers in a car accident on communities, friends is devestating: the effect on parents and family, unimaginable.

This week, the father of one child killed on the north coast will meet with NSW Roads Minister, Eric Roozendaal, to press for changes.

Should there be changes? If so, what changes? Are legislative changes enough?

Some possibilities for Provisional licence holders suggested in the media include:

• restrictions on the number of passengers they can carry.
• restrictions on night driving (eg curfews)
• increasing the amount of experience (ie driving hours) before a person can gain a P-Licence.
  

Legal restrictions already include:

• a maximum speed limit of 90 km/hr for P1 licence holders
• zero blood alcohol level when driving

Certainly at P1-level, drivers do not have a great deal of experience. Despite any restrictions it is incredibly easy for any driver to drive any car too fast for the conditions, especially on unfamiliar roads. As licences, and cars, are gained, there is increasing peer pressure for "a drive". Passengers, especially those without licences, could be more inclined to suggest inappropriate behaviours, because they have even fewer skills and understanding of the real processes involved in driving. ie concentration, observation, anticipation, driving to conditions, as well as the coordination of accelerator/brake/clutch.

I believe that some restrictions on the number of passengers (eg not more than 2) could be appropriate. Also appropriate might be suggestions for parents of young drivers, so that they are not left to "fend for themselves" once they have a licence/car; and compulsory group sessions for learner-drivers on the effects and consequences of serious accidents and how to avoid them.

Whatever we, as a society, decide must NOT be based on a "political response" only. Our response must help to create and reinforce parental and community expectations about responsible, careful driving. ... For all our sakes.

The Analyst